Final answer:
Classical criminology advocates for proportionate and consistent punishment focusing on deterrence, whereas neoclassical criminology considers individual circumstances allowing for a more tailored approach, which can include rehabilitation efforts.
Step-by-step explanation:
Classical and neoclassical criminology differ primarily in their views on the nature of punishment and human behavior. Classical criminology, which emerged in the 18th century, emphasizes individual responsibility and the idea that punishment should be proportionate, deter future crimes, and be applied consistently to all offenders. In contrast, neoclassical criminology, developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, acknowledges that certain factors such as age, mental state, and the circumstances under which a crime is committed may affect the individual's culpability, thereby influencing the nature and severity of punishment.
Specifically, classical criminology promotes a more rigid and systematic approach to punishment with less consideration for individual circumstances, prioritizing deterrence above other aims. Meanwhile, neoclassical criminology allows for modifications in the justice system's response to crime, taking into account mitigating factors that might warrant a different kind of punishment, potentially opening the door for rehabilitation efforts designed to prevent future offenses. Throughout the centuries, the discussion of punishment has evolved to include a wider array of approaches including rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, prevention, and restoration.